G
G
Guest
Guest
I ignore this stuff. "They" are now finding genes for gayness, infidelity, bla bla bla.
Perdita
Perdita
Lucifer_Carroll
GOATS!!!
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 3,319
This was one of the cross-groups in the Selfish Gene square for behavior. It's a sucker that is used to improve the chances of the group surviving. I'm not sure if its fully a gene though. There has to be some environmental work as well in order to recognize the difference between a "bad" spiteful action (one that harms the chances of the gene-bearer's brothers surviving) and a "good" spiteful action (one that increases the chances of the gene-bearer's brothers surviving). Overall, it sounds to me like some behavioral scientists read Dawkins and said I bet we can get away with copying him if we phrase it differently. I'd have to read up more in a real journal though. Newspapers are notoriously bad about confusing any biology work with proof of a gene. I'd want to make sure they found such and such gene which codes for suchandsuch behavior, the release of suchandsuch hormones and the like. Such discoveries don't often happen in real life, and when they do are overhyped by a media eager to make psychology a real science until the reported story doesn't resemble the discovery anymore.
Anyway, I'd want to study it a bit more before I take it at face value. It makes too good a headline to drink it up right away.
Anyway, I'd want to study it a bit more before I take it at face value. It makes too good a headline to drink it up right away.
This reminds me of a study that I read about a few weeks ago about how the pleasure centre of the brain reacts positively towards revenge. It was based around people playing a game where they could punish people who betrayed them, but at a risk to themselves. The interesting thing is that there was a strong anti-darwinist tendency to it. Even though a spiteful action might cause a player to lose a game, that person would still get significant pleasure from doing so.
Anyway, much of what is called 'spite' in this article sounds more like simple evolutionary biology. Of course species are going to develop responses that might kill themselves but benefit their community. Is that spite? I don't think it is.
Anyway, much of what is called 'spite' in this article sounds more like simple evolutionary biology. Of course species are going to develop responses that might kill themselves but benefit their community. Is that spite? I don't think it is.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
It looks to me like Chilled was smitten with the last example, The Gullibility Gene.
Testing to see how many Litsters showed evidence.
Gauche
Testing to see how many Litsters showed evidence.
Gauche
Virtual_Burlesque
Former Ecdysiast
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Posts
- 4,083
I knew there was a reason why I didn't like playing Parcheesi and Sorry! with my cousins.fogbank said:
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
The general view of Nature as being 'red in tooth and claw'--a vicious, no-holds-barred fight for survival--was popular in the nineteenth century, where it was used as a rational for ethnocentric theories and social darwinism. We've come a long way since then.
We now know that symbiosis is much more prevalent than we'd ever thought. Even we human beings are symbionts. All of our cells have things called mitochondria in them that help us use energy, and mitochondria were once free-living organisms which at some point in our ancient history struck up a deal with animal cells to live inside them and provide energy in return for food and a nice place to live. Mitochondria still have their own private DNA, even though they're so integrated into our cells that neither we nor they could live on their own anymore. But the fact is, we're composite beings.
The other thing reports like this always misunderstand is that humans are social animals. We live and die as a group, and so evolution favors those traits that ensure group survival, like love and altruism and care of the aged and infirm, whose knowledge has great survival value. Bacteria are not social animals.
I can believe Fogbank's article about the pleasurable aspects of revenge, but that's an intragroup emotion, kind of like the drive towards power and status which is also a group function. It's a long step from taking pleasure in besting someone in a game or status competition to taking pleasure in killing a group member or threatening the group's survival, though.
In any case, Perdita's right. This finding a gene for everything is just a scientific fad. Researchers love to see their name in print as much as anyone else does, and they're prone to pursuing this kind of stuff and sensationalizing their results. We know that human behavior is more complex than that.
---dr.M.
We now know that symbiosis is much more prevalent than we'd ever thought. Even we human beings are symbionts. All of our cells have things called mitochondria in them that help us use energy, and mitochondria were once free-living organisms which at some point in our ancient history struck up a deal with animal cells to live inside them and provide energy in return for food and a nice place to live. Mitochondria still have their own private DNA, even though they're so integrated into our cells that neither we nor they could live on their own anymore. But the fact is, we're composite beings.
The other thing reports like this always misunderstand is that humans are social animals. We live and die as a group, and so evolution favors those traits that ensure group survival, like love and altruism and care of the aged and infirm, whose knowledge has great survival value. Bacteria are not social animals.
I can believe Fogbank's article about the pleasurable aspects of revenge, but that's an intragroup emotion, kind of like the drive towards power and status which is also a group function. It's a long step from taking pleasure in besting someone in a game or status competition to taking pleasure in killing a group member or threatening the group's survival, though.
In any case, Perdita's right. This finding a gene for everything is just a scientific fad. Researchers love to see their name in print as much as anyone else does, and they're prone to pursuing this kind of stuff and sensationalizing their results. We know that human behavior is more complex than that.
---dr.M.
Last edited:
